Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal. These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
>

The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
turn out right.

If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
the clocks still stay in synch.

Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.

1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
have exhibited the same size effect. (This is arguing that sampling from a
population of possibilities is no good, and you have to exhaust all
categories to be convincing. No scientist is going to go for that.)

2. Even though the size of the effects is the same, they are produced by
completely different explanations, and they just HAPPENED to have the same
size effect. (This is arguing that you have to PROVE that all other effects
could not have coincidentally not only provided the same sign effect but
the same size. No scientist is going to go for that either.)

3. Even though the size of the effects are not only the same but of the
exact amount predicted by the theory, the true explanation is completely
different than what the theory says is going on. (This is arguing that
completely different causes can accidentally provide the same size effect
and sign as the theory predicted. No scientist is going to go for that
either.)

In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
>speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big
>deal. These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational
>response of a particular clock technology and design, not a quality of
>time.

You have things mixed up.
Pendulum clock rates are determined by (small) g.
Huygens already discovered that g varies with geographical latitude.
(his clock ran slow when he took it with him to Paris)
The general relativistic change in clock rates goes with \Phi,
the Newtonian potential.

And for the 'so what':
It is necessary to take gravitational clock shifts into account
when doing precision calculations of motions in the solar system. [1]

Jan

[1] You need to use TCB instead of TAI.
The difference is about half a second/year.

On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 23:11:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
> picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
> the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
> have exhibited the same size effect.

Take a pendulum, take a pulsar clock and put your moronic fartings
straight into your dumb, fanatic ass, where they belong.

On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 23:35:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
> >speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big
> >deal. These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational
> >response of a particular clock technology and design, not a quality of
> >time.
> You have things mixed up.
> Pendulum clock rates are determined by (small) g.
> Huygens already discovered that g varies with geographical latitude.
> (his clock ran slow when he took it with him to Paris)
> The general relativistic change in clock rates goes with \Phi,
> the Newtonian potential.
>
> And for the 'so what':
> It is necessary to take gravitational clock shifts into account
> when doing precision calculations of motions in the solar system. [1]

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
your insane Shit TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clolcks always do. Sorry, poor halfbrain.
You've defined time as "what clocks indicate", they
indicate t'=t, game over. Common sense was warning
your idiot guru.

patdolan wrote:
>
> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal. These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.

How does gravity affect a sundial?

besides, all clocks do not measure time...they measure space.

the shadow of a sundial moves in space, not time.

clocks measure space, not time.

duration is the amount of space, not the amount of time.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 4/14/22 3:36 PM, patdolan wrote:
> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes.

No, they don't. You make unsubstantiated claims that are inconsistent
with literally zillions of experiments and observations.

> Atomic clocks speed up.

No, they don't. Nor do they ever slow down.

[Measurements by distant observers of SIGNALS from the clock
may speed up or slow down, but that is an effect on how the
signals are measured, and does not affect the clock at all.]

> Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance.

Hmmm. A "pendulum clock" is not a clock unless you include the entire
earth as part of it. So moving the pendulum relative to the earth
changes its internal timekeeping mechanism -- you are comparing
physically different clocks without recognizing that they are different.

> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response
> of a particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.

No clock technology is affected by gravity in any theory of modern
physics. Your mistaken belief is due to your poor reading skills, your
lack of understanding of very basic physics, and your outrageously
unwarranted arrogance.

(Admittedly that is aided and abetted by very poor writing
in all too many popular articles on the subject, and even
some technical articles.)

In physics, "Time is what clocks measure" [Einstein and others]. This is
clear and unassailable, because in any experiment that tests a theory
that uses time, the time of the theory is measured with a clock.

If you want to go off on a metaphysical rant, and rave about "whet time
'really' means", feel free -- many people have done so, with no
tangible result (only "feel good" emotions in their individual minds).
That would not would change anything at all about physics, because
clocks will continue to be used to measure time.

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
> > speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
> > These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
> > particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
> >
> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
> turn out right.
>
> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
> the clocks still stay in synch.
>
> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.

Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock seconds at different rates.
>
> 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
> picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
> the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
> have exhibited the same size effect. (This is arguing that sampling from a
> population of possibilities is no good, and you have to exhaust all
> categories to be convincing. No scientist is going to go for that.)
>
> 2. Even though the size of the effects is the same, they are produced by
> completely different explanations, and they just HAPPENED to have the same
> size effect. (This is arguing that you have to PROVE that all other effects
> could not have coincidentally not only provided the same sign effect but
> the same size. No scientist is going to go for that either.)
>
> 3. Even though the size of the effects are not only the same but of the
> exact amount predicted by the theory, the true explanation is completely
> different than what the theory says is going on. (This is arguing that
> completely different causes can accidentally provide the same size effect
> and sign as the theory predicted. No scientist is going to go for that
> either.)
>
> In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
> coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
> different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
> magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
> and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 2:04:14 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/14/22 3:36 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes.
> No, they don't. You make unsubstantiated claims that are inconsistent
> with literally zillions of experiments and observations.
>
> > Atomic clocks speed up.
>
> No, they don't. Nor do they ever slow down.
>
> [Measurements by distant observers of SIGNALS from the clock
> may speed up or slow down, but that is an effect on how the
> signals are measured, and does not affect the clock at all.]

It does not depend on measurement. Atomic clocks will accumulate different number of clock seconds at different gravitational potentials.
> > Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance.
> Hmmm. A "pendulum clock" is not a clock unless you include the entire
> earth as part of it. So moving the pendulum relative to the earth
> changes its internal timekeeping mechanism -- you are comparing
> physically different clocks without recognizing that they are different.
> > These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response
> > of a particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
> No clock technology is affected by gravity in any theory of modern
> physics. Your mistaken belief is due to your poor reading skills, your
> lack of understanding of very basic physics, and your outrageously
> unwarranted arrogance.
>
> (Admittedly that is aided and abetted by very poor writing
> in all too many popular articles on the subject, and even
> some technical articles.)
>
> In physics, "Time is what clocks measure" [Einstein and others]. This is
> clear and unassailable, because in any experiment that tests a theory
> that uses time, the time of the theory is measured with a clock.
>
> If you want to go off on a metaphysical rant, and rave about "whet time
> 'really' means", feel free -- many people have done so, with no
> tangible result (only "feel good" emotions in their individual minds).
> That would not would change anything at all about physics, because
> clocks will continue to be used to measure time.
>
> Tom Roberts

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 2:04:14 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> > Atomic clocks speed up.
>>
>> No, they don't. Nor do they ever slow down.
>> [Measurements by distant observers of SIGNALS from the clock may speed
>> up or slow down, but that is an effect on how the signals are measured,
>> and does not affect the clock at all.]
>
> It does not depend on measurement. Atomic clocks will accumulate
> different number of clock seconds at different gravitational potentials.

clocks are made to display time, not to accumulate anything. Idiot. A
second is historically related to a heart beat. Idiot.

On 4/16/22 1:51 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 2:04:14 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 4/14/22 3:36 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>> Atomic clocks speed up.
>>
>> No, they don't. Nor do they ever slow down.
>>
>> [Measurements by distant observers of SIGNALS from the clock may
>> speed up or slow down, but that is an effect on how the signals
>> are measured, and does not affect the clock at all.]
>
> It does not depend on measurement.

Measuring those SIGNALS manifestly does depend on how they are
measured.

> Atomic clocks will accumulate different number of clock seconds at
> different gravitational potentials.

Yes, when suitably compared. This is not because they "tick at different
rates", but rather because they traverse different paths through
spacetime, which have different path lengths between comparisons.

[I have told you this dozens and dozens of times -- you
are clearly unable or uninterested in learning about
modern physics. So I will resume ignoring your posts.]

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 1:36:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal. These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.

Is this another riddle?

Tom Roberts wrote:

>>> [Measurements by distant observers of SIGNALS from the clock may speed
>>> up or slow down, but that is an effect on how the signals are
>>> measured,
>>> and does not affect the clock at all.]
>>
>> It does not depend on measurement.
>
> Measuring those SIGNALS manifestly does depend on how they are measured.

It's not only the measurements. Includes measurements, but you guys don't
understand relativity. On how serious this is.

On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 20:04:14 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/14/22 3:36 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes.
> No, they don't. You make unsubstantiated claims that are inconsistent
> with literally zillions of experiments and observations.
>
> > Atomic clocks speed up.
>
> No, they don't. Nor do they ever slow down.

Anyone can check GPS satellites, poor halfbrain. It's 9 192 631 774
instead 9 192 631 770 there. That's where your insane lies
end. Game over.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
>>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
>>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
>>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
>>>
>> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
>> turn out right.
>>
>> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
>> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
>> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
>> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
>> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
>> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
>> the clocks still stay in synch.
>>
>> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
>> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
>> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
>> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
>
> Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
> at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock
> seconds at different rates.

Different path through spacetime.

To understand the meaning of those words requires reading a book. There is
no shortcut possible. It is not practical to summarize the content of a
book on Usenet.

>>
>> 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
>> picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
>> the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
>> have exhibited the same size effect. (This is arguing that sampling from a
>> population of possibilities is no good, and you have to exhaust all
>> categories to be convincing. No scientist is going to go for that.)
>>
>> 2. Even though the size of the effects is the same, they are produced by
>> completely different explanations, and they just HAPPENED to have the same
>> size effect. (This is arguing that you have to PROVE that all other effects
>> could not have coincidentally not only provided the same sign effect but
>> the same size. No scientist is going to go for that either.)
>>
>> 3. Even though the size of the effects are not only the same but of the
>> exact amount predicted by the theory, the true explanation is completely
>> different than what the theory says is going on. (This is arguing that
>> completely different causes can accidentally provide the same size effect
>> and sign as the theory predicted. No scientist is going to go for that
>> either.)
>>
>> In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
>> coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
>> different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
>> magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
>> and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, 17 April 2022 at 14:39:32 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
> >>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
> >>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
> >>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
> >>>
> >> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
> >> turn out right.
> >>
> >> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
> >> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
> >> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
> >> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
> >> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
> >> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
> >> the clocks still stay in synch.
> >>
> >> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
> >> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
> >> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
> >> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
> >
> > Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
> > at a faster rate

But they don't. Anyone can check GPS and its clocks.
That's where the delusions of relativistic cultists end.

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 8:39:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
> >>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
> >>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
> >>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
> >>>
> >> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
> >> turn out right.
> >>
> >> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
> >> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
> >> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
> >> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
> >> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
> >> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
> >> the clocks still stay in synch.
> >>
> >> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
> >> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
> >> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
> >> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
> >
> > Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
> > at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock
> > seconds at different rates.
> Different path through spacetime.

There is no such thing as spacetime.
Clock at different states of absolute motion accumulates clock seconds at different rates. Why? Because the arrival of energy to complete a transition of the Cs 133 atom is dependent on the speed of light and the speed of light is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock. Learn some new physics......don't keep Einstein's obsolete physics.
>
> To understand the meaning of those words requires reading a book. There is
> no shortcut possible. It is not practical to summarize the content of a
> book on Usenet.
> >>
> >> 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
> >> picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
> >> the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
> >> have exhibited the same size effect. (This is arguing that sampling from a
> >> population of possibilities is no good, and you have to exhaust all
> >> categories to be convincing. No scientist is going to go for that.)
> >>
> >> 2. Even though the size of the effects is the same, they are produced by
> >> completely different explanations, and they just HAPPENED to have the same
> >> size effect. (This is arguing that you have to PROVE that all other effects
> >> could not have coincidentally not only provided the same sign effect but
> >> the same size. No scientist is going to go for that either.)
> >>
> >> 3. Even though the size of the effects are not only the same but of the
> >> exact amount predicted by the theory, the true explanation is completely
> >> different than what the theory says is going on. (This is arguing that
> >> completely different causes can accidentally provide the same size effect
> >> and sign as the theory predicted. No scientist is going to go for that
> >> either.)
> >>
> >> In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
> >> coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
> >> different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
> >> magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
> >> and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 8:39:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
>>>>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
>>>>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
>>>>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
>>>>>
>>>> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
>>>> turn out right.
>>>>
>>>> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
>>>> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
>>>> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
>>>> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
>>>> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
>>>> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
>>>> the clocks still stay in synch.
>>>>
>>>> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
>>>> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
>>>> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
>>>> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
>>>
>>> Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
>>> at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock
>>> seconds at different rates.
>> Different path through spacetime.
>
> There is no such thing as spacetime.

Yes, there is. You just don’t know anything about it.

How are you going to learn the explanation for the clocks showing different
elapsed times if you don’t know the basic concepts and you don’t know what
the words mean?

> Clock at different states of absolute motion accumulates clock seconds at
> different rates. Why? Because the arrival of energy to complete a
> transition of the Cs 133 atom is dependent on the speed of light and the
> speed of light is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock.
> Learn some new physics......don't keep Einstein's obsolete physics.
>>
>> To understand the meaning of those words requires reading a book. There is
>> no shortcut possible. It is not practical to summarize the content of a
>> book on Usenet.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
>>>> picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
>>>> the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
>>>> have exhibited the same size effect. (This is arguing that sampling from a
>>>> population of possibilities is no good, and you have to exhaust all
>>>> categories to be convincing. No scientist is going to go for that.)
>>>>
>>>> 2. Even though the size of the effects is the same, they are produced by
>>>> completely different explanations, and they just HAPPENED to have the same
>>>> size effect. (This is arguing that you have to PROVE that all other effects
>>>> could not have coincidentally not only provided the same sign effect but
>>>> the same size. No scientist is going to go for that either.)
>>>>
>>>> 3. Even though the size of the effects are not only the same but of the
>>>> exact amount predicted by the theory, the true explanation is completely
>>>> different than what the theory says is going on. (This is arguing that
>>>> completely different causes can accidentally provide the same size effect
>>>> and sign as the theory predicted. No scientist is going to go for that
>>>> either.)
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
>>>> coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
>>>> different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
>>>> magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
>>>> and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 20:12:38 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> How are you going to learn the explanation for the clocks showing different
> elapsed times

Excuse me, poor halfbrain, anyone can check GPS.
Clocks are not showing different elapsed times.
So explaination is not necessary.

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:41:53 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/16/22 1:51 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 2:04:14 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 4/14/22 3:36 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> Atomic clocks speed up.
> >>
> >> No, they don't. Nor do they ever slow down.
> >>
> >> [Measurements by distant observers of SIGNALS from the clock may
> >> speed up or slow down, but that is an effect on how the signals
> >> are measured, and does not affect the clock at all.]
> >
> > It does not depend on measurement.
> Measuring those SIGNALS manifestly does depend on how they are
> measured.
> > Atomic clocks will accumulate different number of clock seconds at
> > different gravitational potentials.
> Yes, when suitably compared. This is not because they "tick at different
> rates", but rather because they traverse different paths through
> spacetime, which have different path lengths between comparisons. g

There is no such thing as spacetime. It's better to say that the arrival of energy to complete a transition at different locations take different amount of clock time. Better yet, a clock second at different location contain a different amount of absolute time.
>
> [I have told you this dozens and dozens of times -- you
> are clearly unable or uninterested in learning about
> modern physics. So I will resume ignoring your posts.]

Who appointed you to be the oracle? I thought that we were having a discussion ......not having you to teach me your indoctrinated knowledge.

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:12:38 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 8:39:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
> >>>>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
> >>>>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
> >>>>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
> >>>>>
> >>>> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
> >>>> turn out right.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
> >>>> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
> >>>> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
> >>>> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
> >>>> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
> >>>> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
> >>>> the clocks still stay in synch.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
> >>>> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
> >>>> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
> >>>> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
> >>>
> >>> Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
> >>> at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock
> >>> seconds at different rates.
> >> Different path through spacetime.
> >
> > There is no such thing as spacetime.
> Yes, there is. You just don’t know anything about it.
>
> How are you going to learn the explanation for the clocks showing different
> elapsed times if you don’t know the basic concepts and you don’t know what
> the words mean?
>
Idiot.....clocks in different frames accumulates clock seconds at different rates in different frames.
However, this does not means that a clock second is an interval of absolute time. It means that a clock second in different frame contains a different amount of absolute time. The cause of the
Clocks at different states of absolute motion accumulates clock secois difference is because that the arrival of energy to complete a transition of the Cs 133 atom takes a different amount of absolute time.
>
> > different rates. Why? Because the arrival of energy to complete a
> > transition of the Cs 133 atom is dependent on the speed of light and the
> > speed of light is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock.
> > Learn some new physics......don't keep Einstein's obsolete physics.
> >>
> >> To understand the meaning of those words requires reading a book. There is
> >> no shortcut possible. It is not practical to summarize the content of a
> >> book on Usenet.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Even though there are clocks of a wide variety of mechanisms, we only
> >>>> picked these two, and these two picked at random just HAPPENED to exhibit
> >>>> the same magnitude of effect. Had we picked any other pair, they would not
> >>>> have exhibited the same size effect. (This is arguing that sampling from a
> >>>> population of possibilities is no good, and you have to exhaust all
> >>>> categories to be convincing. No scientist is going to go for that.)
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Even though the size of the effects is the same, they are produced by
> >>>> completely different explanations, and they just HAPPENED to have the same
> >>>> size effect. (This is arguing that you have to PROVE that all other effects
> >>>> could not have coincidentally not only provided the same sign effect but
> >>>> the same size. No scientist is going to go for that either.)
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. Even though the size of the effects are not only the same but of the
> >>>> exact amount predicted by the theory, the true explanation is completely
> >>>> different than what the theory says is going on. (This is arguing that
> >>>> completely different causes can accidentally provide the same size effect
> >>>> and sign as the theory predicted. No scientist is going to go for that
> >>>> either.)
> >>>>
> >>>> In other words, you can elect to rather believe that some phenomenal
> >>>> coincidence has arisen whereby multiple effects that affect clocks of
> >>>> different mechanisms have conspired to combine to produce the same sign and
> >>>> magnitude of an effect clearly predicted by a theory. That would be idiotic
> >>>> and no one would waste the time to protect you from that idiocy.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 4/19/2022 7:43 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:12:38 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 8:39:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic clocks
>>>>>>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance. Big deal.
>>>>>>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational response of a
>>>>>>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the numbers
>>>>>> turn out right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the design to
>>>>>> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to test
>>>>>> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by mechanism is
>>>>>> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be sensitive to
>>>>>> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply by putting
>>>>>> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and seeing if
>>>>>> the clocks still stay in synch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same* time
>>>>>> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is exactly what is
>>>>>> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being the right
>>>>>> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock seconds
>>>>> at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating clock
>>>>> seconds at different rates.

>>>> Different path through spacetime.
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as spacetime.

Your assertion that there is no such thing as spacetime is of no value.

>> Yes, there is. You just don’t know anything about it.

NOBODY knows anything about it since you just made it up!
>>
>> How are you going to learn the explanation for the clocks showing different
>> elapsed times if you don’t know the basic concepts and you don’t know what
>> the words mean?
>>
> Idiot.....clocks in different frames accumulates clock seconds at different rates in different frames.

Then if A and B are in relative motion, A sees B's clock as running slow
and B sees A's clock as running slow, how do you explain that with your
mythical absolute time? You can't. That's why your Muddle Mechanics is
a complete, total, absolute failure.

> However, this does not means that a clock second is an interval of absolute time. It means that a clock second in different frame contains a different amount of absolute time.

So with my case of relative motion of A and B, how much absolute time is
1 second of A's clock? 1 second of B's clock? You can't make it work.

On 4/19/2022 7:25 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:41:53 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 4/16/22 1:51 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 2:04:14 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 4/14/22 3:36 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>> Atomic clocks speed up.
>>>>
>>>> No, they don't. Nor do they ever slow down.
>>>>
>>>> [Measurements by distant observers of SIGNALS from the clock may
>>>> speed up or slow down, but that is an effect on how the signals
>>>> are measured, and does not affect the clock at all.]
>>>
>>> It does not depend on measurement.
>> Measuring those SIGNALS manifestly does depend on how they are
>> measured.
>>> Atomic clocks will accumulate different number of clock seconds at
>>> different gravitational potentials.
>> Yes, when suitably compared. This is not because they "tick at different
>> rates", but rather because they traverse different paths through
>> spacetime, which have different path lengths between comparisons. g
>
> There is no such thing as spacetime. It's better to say that the arrival of energy to complete a transition at different locations take different amount of clock time. Better yet, a clock second at different location contain a different amount of absolute time.
>>
>> [I have told you this dozens and dozens of times -- you
>> are clearly unable or uninterested in learning about
>> modern physics. So I will resume ignoring your posts.]
>
> Who appointed you to be the oracle? I thought that we were having a discussion ......not having you to teach me your indoctrinated knowledge.

You aren't trying to discuss anything either, Stupid Ken. All you do is
repeat, like a parrot, debunked crap like "clocks in different frames
accumulates clock seconds at different rates in different frames.
BRAWWWK! Polly wanna cracker!!" You are as much of a parrot as the
Polish janitor.
>

On 4/19/2022 10:49 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 7:43 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:12:38 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 8:39:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Clocks do all sorts of crazy things when gravity changes. Atomic
>>>>>>>> clocks
>>>>>>>> speed up. Pendulum clocks slow down in the same circumstance.
>>>>>>>> Big deal.
>>>>>>>> These rate changes are a consequence of the gravitational
>>>>>>>> response of a
>>>>>>>> particular clock technology and design, not a quality of time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with this “could be anything” complaint is that the
>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>> turn out right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you have clocks of different mechanisms and you do work in the
>>>>>>> design to
>>>>>>> mitigate/diminish the effects of other factors, then it’s easy to
>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>> whether this is successful. E.g. if you have one clock that by
>>>>>>> mechanism is
>>>>>>> insensitive to ambient RF and another clock that would be
>>>>>>> sensitive to
>>>>>>> ambient RF but you’ve shielded it, then this is testable simply
>>>>>>> by putting
>>>>>>> the two clocks in a couple of different ambient RF conditions and
>>>>>>> seeing if
>>>>>>> the clocks still stay in synch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now then, if it turns out that the two clocks exhibit the *same*
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>> effects at an elevation, and the *amount* of the effect is
>>>>>>> exactly what is
>>>>>>> predicted by a particular theory, then to avoid the theory being
>>>>>>> the right
>>>>>>> explanation you have to start doing a number of dances.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please explain why a clock at higher elevation accumulates clock
>>>>>> seconds
>>>>>> at a faster rate and why that is not due to them are accumulating
>>>>>> clock
>>>>>> seconds at different rates.
>
>>>>> Different path through spacetime.
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as spacetime.
>
> Your assertion that there is no such thing as spacetime is of no value.
>
>>> Yes, there is. You just don’t know anything about it.
>
> NOBODY knows anything about it since you just made it up!

My mistake, I thought this was Ken talking about absolute time which he
made up. Instead Odd is correcting Ken when Ken said there is no
spacetime. Ignore this sentence.
>>>
>>> How are you going to learn the explanation for the clocks showing
>>> different
>>> elapsed times if you don’t know the basic concepts and you don’t know
>>> what
>>> the words mean?
>>>
>> Idiot.....clocks in different frames accumulates clock seconds at
>> different rates in different frames.
>
> Then if A and B are in relative motion, A sees B's clock as running slow
> and B sees A's clock as running slow, how do you explain that with your
> mythical absolute time? You can't.  That's why your Muddle Mechanics is
> a complete, total, absolute failure.
>
>> However, this does not means that a clock second is an interval of
>> absolute time. It means that a clock second in different frame
>> contains a different amount of absolute time.
>
> So with my case of relative motion of A and B, how much absolute time is
> 1 second of A's clock?  1 second of B's clock?  You can't make it work.

On 4/19/22 6:25 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> There is no such thing as spacetime.

Of course not! Spacetime is part of the MODEL, not the world.
Specifically, it models the spatial-temporal relationships observed in
the world.

Tom Roberts